≡ Menu

Riverfront Tiny Cabin in California Woods For Sale

This 280 sq. ft. tiny cabin is on a 10,019 sq. ft. riverfront lot in the woods. The listing says it’s 280 sq. ft., but to me it looks like it’s bigger than that. What do you think? Is it actually 280 sq. ft. or do you think it’s bigger than that?


There is no phone or Internet service here. The cabin is in a historic neighborhood called Old Kingvale in Truckee, California.

It’s for sale right now with an asking price of $139,000. The listing says, “cash only,” because the, “property doesn’t qualify for conventional financing.” To me that’s a sign that there may be issues (permits, title, etc.) associated with the property so please do your research.

There’s a river you can listen to right from the deck of the cabin. You can even fish in the river from the backdoor. Sounds pretty relaxing, doesn’t it? And the cabin is beautiful too. The interior is all wood. The listing says it has new wiring, plumbing, and septic. Please enjoy and re-share below.

Riverfront Tiny Cabin in the Woods

riverfront-tiny-cabin-in-the-woods-for-sale-01

Images © Zillow/Coldwell Banker/Carrie Hoyt

riverfront-tiny-cabin-in-the-woods-for-sale-02

riverfront-tiny-cabin-in-the-woods-for-sale-03

riverfront-tiny-cabin-in-the-woods-for-sale-04

riverfront-tiny-cabin-in-the-woods-for-sale-05

riverfront-tiny-cabin-in-the-woods-for-sale-06


riverfront-tiny-cabin-in-the-woods-for-sale-07

riverfront-tiny-cabin-in-the-woods-for-sale-08

riverfront-tiny-cabin-in-the-woods-for-sale-09

riverfront-tiny-cabin-in-the-woods-for-sale-010

riverfront-tiny-cabin-in-the-woods-for-sale-011

riverfront-tiny-cabin-in-the-woods-for-sale-012

Images © Zillow/Coldwell Banker/Carrie Hoyt

The cabin’s location is 10207 Maple Ln,Truckee, CA 96161. It’s listed as a 280 sq. ft. studio cabin.

Learn more: http://www.zillow.com/homedetails/10207-Maple-Ln-Truckee-CA-96161/19457950_zpid/

You can help us spread the word on this tiny cabin by “Liking” on Facebook using the button below and re-sharing this story using the e-mail and social media re-share buttons below. Every share helps, including yours. And we’d all love to read your thoughts in the comments below. Thank you so much.

If you enjoyed this tiny cabin you’ll absolutely LOVE joining our Free Daily Tiny House Newsletter with even more! Thank you!

The following two tabs change content below.

Alex

Alex is a contributor and editor for TinyHouseTalk.com and the always free Tiny House Newsletter. He has a passion for exploring and sharing tiny homes (from yurts and RVs to tiny cabins and cottages) and inspiring simple living stories. We invite you to send in your story and tiny home photos too so we can re-share and inspire others towards a simple life too. Thank you!




{ 20 comments… add one }
  • Peter Christensen December 17, 2014, 7:45 pm

    “…10,019 acre riverfront lot…”

    Do you mean sq ft?

  • Cahow December 17, 2014, 8:28 pm

    Wow! I’m writing the check, as I speak, for $139,000.00 for “10,019 acres”.

    Alex, dear one, it’s supposed to be “Lot: 10,019 sqft”…NOT ACRES!!!!! LOL
    I’ll blame it on too much nog in your eggnog, friend! 😀

    And 280 sq.ft.? Not unless it’s a Magical House aka Harry Potter or Dr. Who, where the outside dimensions don’t reflect the inside space. Ha-ha!

    The kitchen is charming but looks horribly cramped, unless it’s how it’s photographed; it looks like no more than 2.5 feet from wall to counter! A One Person kitchen for sure! But, the rest of the space is charming and I like the quirky construction; it reminds me of Piecemeal Cabins of Yore, where you’d build a wee structure, then add onto it year after year.

    • Alex December 17, 2014, 8:33 pm

      Lol, thank God I have you! Sorry to all that had to read that! I appreciate the correction. I updated the page so it’s not so embarrassing to others in the future. Thanks again Cahow 🙂

      • Cahow December 17, 2014, 9:56 pm

        I’ll ALWAYS have your back, Alex!

        We both got a good chuckle out of that one, didn’t we? 😉

  • Martha December 18, 2014, 12:44 pm

    I didn’t even notice the acre-vs-ft thing – guess I just knew what you meant. I like this house and think I could comfortably live in it full time. It’s small, but that’s what it’s meant to be and most tiny houses probably aren’t meant for more than one person working in the kitchen at the same time. It certainly is larger than the 34′ 5th wheel I lived in for a few years.

  • Bonnie December 18, 2014, 1:04 pm

    For the price, I’d gut the inside and finish it out with a more open and updated kitchen. That is, of course, if I didn’t have to spend mega-thousands bringing the structure up to code and getting Internet service…
    Love the imaginative look of the outside.

  • warrior woman December 18, 2014, 1:39 pm

    Something I’ll take away for my eventual small/tiny house … Ladder from the egress window in the loft/upstairs sleeping area. Great to have that second or third egress, but from s second floor I see potential for broken bones. Openable skylight or window big enough to get me out and one of those medal chain ladders that can be hidden in a small box under the window would do the trick. The wooden on the side of the house is a start, but doesn’t look very secure, safe or functional. And a bonus — the ladder can be used to climb on the roof for repairs. Just thinking ….

    • Elaine January 9, 2015, 6:33 pm

      In the Sierra Nevada, there is often enough snow that the second floor would be used as the main entry. Picture that front door with 12 feet of snow in front of it. It happens.

  • Bonny December 18, 2014, 1:44 pm

    Someone remarked about living here year ’round…don’t think I would when the total snow, per year, can be ten to twenty feet. Most of these cabins are just for summer use…June to September or so.

  • Jeremy December 18, 2014, 7:33 pm

    Maybe the land isn’t owned, it’s leased? That would explain why banks won’t finance it. Although if it’s lease hold, then that price seems way too high.

  • Sher Falls January 12, 2015, 3:22 pm

    . . . perhaps no financing available due to the fact there is no foundation?

  • Wolf January 13, 2015, 11:29 am

    Sorry guys, but no mortgage for ANY house under 22 ft wide, on a permanent foundation. If treated as a mobile home, 80% of Blue book value in a rental space and if on your own property – no more than half the total appraised value (still subject to the 80%). No reverse mortgage, either.
    Besides, I thought we were mostly going for debt free living. Save up and build it yourself. Then save up for some land and modify to perm.

  • Lisa E. March 7, 2015, 4:26 pm

    I have seen this before minus the warm filter. The warmer and unified all over color really makes a big difference. If this were mine, I’d give the whole place a once over with some low VOC warm colored stain. I think this would double its value and its curb appeal.

  • Comet March 7, 2015, 5:57 pm

    Meet your new neighbors!

    Yes–they ARE called the Donner Party!

    What fun!

  • Jonnie March 7, 2015, 7:00 pm

    My wheelchair and walker haven’t been upgrade for stains, and ladders, and the price is too high for the Square footage. Would need to change too much about the design, and layout, to make it usable. No thank you.

  • Janet March 7, 2015, 8:20 pm

    From google maps, it looks like it’s inside Tahoe National Forest. If it is a forest service cabin, you don’t own the land, only the structure, which is why no bank will finance it. We looked into buying one of these at Echo Lake, about an hour south of this one, and decided against it.

  • Kristy March 7, 2015, 10:41 pm

    As someone retired from real estate I just wanted to comment about the “won’t qualify for conventional financing”. That doesn’t necessarily mean there are problems. It could be because the land value is more than the house value and most banks refuse to finance a property like this. And it’s not just related to size. I’ve experienced a 1,000 sq ft older home on 50 acres not get financing because the land was valued more than the house. Crazy rules but banks don’t make a lot of sense most of the time.

    • Rebecca March 8, 2015, 5:37 am

      I had that “land value is more than the house value” conversation with my bank’s mortgage department. They said at most 40%. I have 5 acres of mountain forest in Santa Fe county. A McMansion by any other name still stinks.

  • Michelle March 8, 2015, 1:22 pm

    As a mortgage lender I can tell you unequivocally that the reason it won’t qualify for conventional financing is because there are likely no comps…Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae have strict property eligibility guidelines and one of the main criteria in establishing value (for lending purposes) of any property is recent sales of similar homes in the same area. This means a house similar in size and design that has sold within the last 6 months, within a narrowly defined radius – often just a few square miles. This is one of the main reasons most one-of-a-kind properties and many non-traditional properties will never qualify for conventional financing.

Leave a Comment

Next post:

Previous post: